A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ZZZooommm rant latest



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 7th 03, 03:25 PM
Eric Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote
Actually, he said that if "successfully sued" means prevailed, then who
prevailed against him? (paraphrased; he actually wrote it from the

losing
respondent's point of view). I haven't seen any evidence that his

statement is
untrue.


The evidence is right there in front of your eyes. When you agree to

settle
a suit and pay damages, you lose.


Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when a
settlement is reached.

Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that they
had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as
co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle.

The cost of settling could have smaller than the cost of defending a case
and appeals that might've dragged on for a couple years.
Better a known figure now which you can write off, than an unknown amount
(for both defense and outcome) in the future.

It also could've been an insignificant sum to the insurance company...
remember, insurances companies have insurance too (called re-insurance) to
spread their risk. (And re-insurers have insurance, etc, etc... it can even
come full circle, which makes calculating responsibility for payouts fun and
interesting.)

So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully defended.

Just because money changed hands doesn't mean bupkis about the merits of the
suit.

And frankly speaking, I wouldn't trust a "jury of my peers" to decide if it
was day or night.
These are the same "peers" that bankrupted Dow with a $3.2 billion payout
for silicone breast implants which showed no scientific or statistical
evidence of causing disease (systemic or otherwise).

As a disinterested third party, I also found Chuck to be very forthcoming
about his past and current litigation, which is a far cry from catching him
in a lie.
Did he supply it in his initial post? No, but then it wasn't relevant.
Similarly, you'll notice I haven't provided a list of my civil, criminal and
traffic violations

Eric "you can't flame me... I said "breast" :-)"


  #2  
Old September 8th 03, 04:56 AM
Juan E Jimenez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Eric Miller" wrote in message
. net...

Not taking sides, but there's generally no admission of wrong-doing when a
settlement is reached.


You still lose. Doesn't matter if admit it or not. You know that as well as
I do.

Something else to consider in regards to the "big" settlement is that they
had liability insurance, therefore the insurance company was named as
co-defendant, and they might have driven the decision to settle.


shrug Doesn't change the end result.

Better a known figure now which you can write off, than an unknown amount
(for both defense and outcome) in the future.


On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff
claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it
was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and
expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week
before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can look
at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same.

So it could be just as fair to say that the suit was successfully

defended.

No, it could be _rationalized_ that way. Quite a difference.

As a disinterested third party, I also found Chuck to be very forthcoming
about his past and current litigation, which is a far cry from catching

him
in a lie.


Unhuh. It is pointed out that he's been successfully sued, and his comeback
is to ask what that means. Forthcoming indeed.



  #3  
Old September 8th 03, 06:16 AM
C.D. Damron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
news:w5T6b.385999$Ho3.58776@sccrnsc03...

On a simple case of determining why an ultralight crashed? The plaintiff
claims it was negligence in design and construction. The defense claims it
was a stall just prior to landing. There were witnesses to the event, and
expert witnesses are lined up to argue the plaintiff's evidence. A week
before the pre-trial conf, the defense settles, in six figures. You can

look
at it in umpteenthousand ways. The conclusion is still the same.


Juan,

If you think that every out-of-court settlement is an admission of
negligence or responsibility, you are an idiot. Maybe, your stupid peasant
mentality can't comprehend how an individual or company could agree to a
tremendous settlement.

Screw it, I think that Juan is a helpless case. For the rest of you...

For any of you that might have found logic in Juan's analysis that
settlements imply guilt or responsibility, I'll share a personal story. I
don't know enough about Chuck's settlements to offer a comparison, but I
would dare to say that there are parallels to my story.

In many, if not most cases, out-of-court settlements are acts of
preservation. I'm not just talking self-preservation - I'm talking about
preserving things that you value more than shallow moral victories - like
your ability to support your family and the families of those you employ,
people that have supported a company through their hard work and sacrifices
made over their careers.

Sometimes, you can't afford to take a chance. The risks are too great.

In the not so distant past, a company owned by a relative of mine settled a
case, out of court, for a tremendous sum of money, based on the advice of
both their insurance company and lawyers.

In this case, a truck driver lost control of his truck and attempted to jump
out of the truck before it ran off the road into a rather steep ravine. The
driver was killed in his foolish attempt to avoid injury or death, as the
truck rolled over him. Had the driver been wearing his seatbelt, it is
likely that he would have walked away without serious injury, as the cabin
was undamaged.

Before the same truck was driven off the crash site (after being put back on
its wheels), the truck was inspected by both the DOT and Mine Safety
inspectors. According to the DOT inspectors, the only things that would
have kept the truck from passing an inspection to legal road-service were
the crushed lights.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that my relative's company was not at
fault, the insurance company was not prepared to let a jury decide the case
and settled the case for what almost any of us on this board would consider
a tremendous amount of money. In the geographic area involved in this case,
no insurance company had ever won a wrongful death suit. The evidence
didn't matter.

Nearing retirement, my relative could have risked the company and its assets
by fighting the "good fight". His personal wealth would not have been
impacted greatly by the company's bankruptcy or insolvency that a negative
jury decision could have yielded.

He took a bitter pill and along with the insurance company, settled the
suit. Almost ten years later, twenty people still have their jobs, their
homes, and their security.

Chuck, don't let the *******s get you down.






  #4  
Old September 8th 03, 06:53 AM
Eric Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We definitely need some kind of tort reform.
Americans have a lottery mentality regarding civil suits, both as plaintiffs
and jurors... and the jackpots keep getting bigger and bigger.
I still think the loser of a lawsuit should pay all court and legal costs,
though I understand the downside of that too (from a recent post here).
At a bare minimum, plaintiffs should only be able to sue for actual damages.
If punitive damages must be awarded, do something useful with them. Apply
them to safety reform, quality assurance... or just pay down the national
debt.
As a last resort, BURN the money... whatever it takes to keep it out of the
hands of the lawyers and plaintffs.
Suits are for redressing wrongs, not a reward for either lack or personal
responsiblity or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Eric "I'm too young to be this old"


  #5  
Old September 8th 03, 07:35 AM
Juan E Jimenez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all
lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled solely
for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant
realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well
as I do.

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
. net...
We definitely need some kind of tort reform.
Americans have a lottery mentality regarding civil suits, both as

plaintiffs
and jurors... and the jackpots keep getting bigger and bigger.
I still think the loser of a lawsuit should pay all court and legal costs,
though I understand the downside of that too (from a recent post here).
At a bare minimum, plaintiffs should only be able to sue for actual

damages.
If punitive damages must be awarded, do something useful with them. Apply
them to safety reform, quality assurance... or just pay down the national
debt.
As a last resort, BURN the money... whatever it takes to keep it out of

the
hands of the lawyers and plaintffs.
Suits are for redressing wrongs, not a reward for either lack or personal
responsiblity or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Eric "I'm too young to be this old"




  #6  
Old September 8th 03, 02:00 PM
Michael Pilla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
. ..
I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all
lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled

solely
for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant
realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well
as I do.


SNIP

The problem is that only the folks on the side that settled know the real
reason and right now, that is Chuck since he was a principal party to the
reason for the settlement. He has indicated, to my satisfaction, that the
reason behind the settlement was similar to the "preservation" information
expressed by a previous poster. That clearly is not something that
reasonable people would argue constitutes a "lose" situation. One could
argue that the plaintiff also "lost" since they did not get the huge
settlement that they felt a jury might award. I guess the old adage that
there are no winners, only losers in court probably applies. (Yes, I know,
someone will argue that there are winners - the lawyers. However, I am
thinking only of the plaintiff and defendant.)

Everyone else remarking about the "reason" behind the settlement (summarized
as win/lose, or, perhaps not-lose/lose) is simply speculating about things
not directly knowable. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I
must take Chuck at his word. Enough folks have expressed similar
experiences that clearly demonstrate "preservation" is a very strong
motivator in settling, not fear of losing because the facts are against the
defendant.

Michael Pilla


  #7  
Old September 8th 03, 06:22 PM
Eric Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
. ..
I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all
lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled

solely
for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant
realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well
as I do.


I didn't say --- all cases settled out of court have no merit.
I did say --- settling out of court says nothing about a case's merit.

Remember, cases get settled out of court because the plaintiff gets a
guaranteed payout instead of rolling the dice and possibly getting nothing.
The plaintiff settles because their case isn't so airtight that they're
assured of a win.
The defendant is more strongly motivated to settle because when juries are
involved because there is no upper bound to what might be awarded.

I'm in favor of capital punishment for stupid juries... summary judgments,
immediately enforced, no chance for appeals!

Eric (Of course, I feel the same way about parking tickets and jaywalking
)


  #8  
Old September 8th 03, 07:23 PM
RobertR237
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Eric Miller"
writes:


We definitely need some kind of tort reform.
Americans have a lottery mentality regarding civil suits, both as plaintiffs
and jurors... and the jackpots keep getting bigger and bigger.


I quite literally has become a legal lottery. File enough lawsuits against
enough companies and you will eventually hit a winner. The costs of filing are
next to nothing so there is no incentive to not go for it.

I still think the loser of a lawsuit should pay all court and legal costs,
though I understand the downside of that too (from a recent post here).


I agree completely. The loser and their lawyers should have to pay the court
costs and the costs for the opposition attorney and other expenses.

At a bare minimum, plaintiffs should only be able to sue for actual damages.
If punitive damages must be awarded, do something useful with them. Apply
them to safety reform, quality assurance... or just pay down the national
debt.


The lawyers will NEVER allow that idea to grow. They stand to make too much
off the current system to allow any major changes. We are trying to put a cap
on non-economic damages in lawsuits here in Texas right now and you should see
how much money the lawyers are pouring into defeating it.

As a last resort, BURN the money... whatever it takes to keep it out of the
hands of the lawyers and plaintffs.
Suits are for redressing wrongs, not a reward for either lack or personal
responsiblity or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Eric "I'm too young to be this old"


Agree.



Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

  #9  
Old September 9th 03, 12:13 AM
Larry Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"RobertR237" wrote in message
...
In article , "Eric

Miller"
writes:


We definitely need some kind of tort reform.
Americans have a lottery mentality regarding civil suits, both as

plaintiffs
and jurors... and the jackpots keep getting bigger and bigger.


I quite literally has become a legal lottery.


You HAS?

So many lawyer wannabes, so little time to slap them around.


  #10  
Old September 8th 03, 07:34 AM
Juan E Jimenez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C.D. Damron" wrote in message
news:FgU6b.285959$cF.88797@rwcrnsc53...

If you think that every out-of-court settlement is an admission of
negligence or responsibility, you are an idiot.


Now you're boring me, son. Go, play in the sandbox all you want. Enjoy.

Juan



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Latest Pipistrel Motorglider Newsletter Uploaded Michael Coates Home Built 1 September 16th 03 06:04 PM
so what is the latest word on Sport Pilot ??? Gilan Home Built 12 September 7th 03 11:14 PM
Latest Ripon & Fisk (OSH) Updates Jim Weir Home Built 4 July 20th 03 10:59 PM
Latest Newsletter Michael Coates Home Built 3 July 15th 03 10:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.